The New York Post "credits" the President with this one, but for discussion purposes on the forum we can avoid pointing blame, and proably all agree that the bell crown hat is not ready for a comeback. Also note that the newspaper wrongly says that the male and female on the left are wearing the "old hat" when in fact the female is wearing the proposed new male-style hat for women.

For some reason the bell crown looked good 90 years ago, now not so much.

It is funny how times and perceptions have changed. The bell crown cap was worn by the Marine Corps 90 years ago but today it is considered "girly".

These are proposed changes that may or may not happen. I remember a discussion on here not so long ago about how the beret was proposed for the Marine Corps and it was NOT received well and never passed the proposal phase.

I think it is because the proposed cover looks like the current female cover therefore it is perceived as "girly". People only see current items and don't think about what things used to look like.

The same applies for the proposed female cover. It looks like the current male cover so people are saying it looks too "manly" for women.

I would like to add that we are only discussing the proposed changes. We have no voice on the matter. I believe only the Marines currently serving can decide whether or not to adopt the proposed changes.

I think it is because the proposed cover looks like the current female cover therefore it is perceived as "girly". People only see current items and don't think about what things used to look like.

The same applies for the proposed female cover. It looks like the current male cover so people are saying it looks too "manly" for women.

I would like to add that we are only discussing the proposed changes. We have no voice on the matter. I believe only the Marines currently serving can decide whether or not to adopt the proposed changes.

Reading an article in the Daily Mail states the cover is going called the "Dan Daly"....although it, as pointed out above, is an attempt to reintroduce the Bell Crown.....the shape of this version looks more like a fire chiefs hat.

Crank up the defibrillator: The New York Post is having a coronary over what it says is "Obama's plan" to sissify the United States Marines.

Hats aside, from the derisive tone and language, clearly someone doesn't think that either gays or women are tough enough to serve, not to mention the insult to the entire nation of France and our commander in chief, who has nothing to do with this decision.

What the Post does get right is that the Uniform Board is currently seeking feedback from both active-duty members and reservists on whether or not to adopt a universal cover (that's a hat to us civilians). A Marines spokesperson told Yahoo Shine that the Corps periodically reviews uniforms and recommends changes. The options would be either a slightly modified version of the current male cover or a topper with a smaller crown — dubbed the "Dan Daly cap" after a World War I hero, Sgt Maj. Daniel Joseph Daly — which is more similar to the cover currently worn by women. Voting ends on Friday, and the Uniform Board will convene on Oct. 29 to consider the results.

The Marine Corps Times chimes in: "The movement to make female uniforms more similar to those worn by men comes as the Defense Department begins to open more roles in combat units to women."

However, similar doesn't have to mean identical. When someone feels good and looks good, they will act accordingly."

What makes sense is letting the soldiers speak for themselves about whether or not to adopt a more unisex appearance — which is what the Uniform Board appears to be doing in the case of the hat options. This seems particularly important for the Marines, for whom appearance is deeply important. "Tradition is more than just a word to the Marine Corps. It's honestly what separates us from the other branches of military," a sergeant who preferred to remain anonymous told Yahoo Shine. "Tradition ties directly to appearance, how an individual Marine looks in or out of their uniforms." Another Marine, former staff sergeant Andre Cato, agreed, "It seems absurd to change the cover. As far as tradition goes, we go way back and it's a very big value." He added, "Females are perfectly happy with their uniform, as are males. It would be like trying to fix something that's not broken."

And in the unlikely event that the Uniform Board decides to change to a unisex hat? Let's recall Daly himself. His so-called girly hat didn't diminish his bravery or bluster one bit.

I don't think it's a double standard. It's simply the recognition that men and women look better wearing garments/hats/uniforms that are gender specific. For an extreme example: guy in a dress? Will never look right...

Attached Images

I don't think it's a double standard. It's simply the recognition that men and women look better wearing garments/hats/uniforms that are gender specific. For an extreme example: guy in a dress? Will never look right...

I believe you missed the main points of the article.

1) “However, similar doesn't have to mean identical”

2) “What makes sense is letting the soldiers speak for themselves about whether or not to adopt a more unisex appearance — which is what the Uniform Board appears to be doing in the case of the hat options.”

3) "Females are perfectly happy with their uniform, as are males. It would be like trying to fix something that's not broken."

4) It is highly unlikely that the cover will be changed.

Regarding your statement the proposed cover is stupid, is it because the cover is similar to the women’s cover? The women’s cover was modeled after the early USMC cover worn by Marines such as Daly. So therefore, you are calling the early USMC cover stupid. Correct? The proposed new women’s cover is modeled after the current men’s cover. People are saying this one is too manly for women so in a sense this one is stupid too? If that is the case, then I guess anything they make that a woman is issued is stupid by your thinking? So women can't wear pants because men do? Isn't that an old and invalidated argument? There seems to be double standards for sure if a man can wear the men’s cover but a woman can't. Conversely if men and women wear the same hat it's stupid? Why is it stupid? Because a woman is wearing it too?

If there is going to be a unisex cover, then it has to be one of these two or a brand new model. However, as it was mentioned in the article, it is highly unlikely that there will be any changes to the Marines cover so this argument is moot.

I think part of the "sensationalism" behind the articles about the proposed change is due to the fact that the government is running way into the red, spending wise, and bumping along from shut down to shut down (or so it seems). People are getting very tired of "pork barrel" projects that have very little bearing or purpose. The multitude of camo (and "patterned") uniforms brought all kinds of attention earlier this year because people started asking "why?" The same goes for the millions of dollars wasted on other proposed uniform changes that either never made it into production (like the Navy's "working khaki") or lived only for the short time of their benefactor, whomever it was that was in the position at the top of the rank structure of the service at the time (Chief of Staff, etc.)

So when families can't receive their death payment to visit the returning body of their loved one who was killed in action during the ongoing war, but the military is making a seemingly needless change (I've never once met a Marine who complained about their uniform - male OR female) that is costing MILLIONS (if it is "going" to cost $8 million to change the covers over, how much has it cost so far in "research and development"???) what's the point? People (from all political perspectives) are getting tired of the government's seeming inability to have some semblance of self-control in spending so anytime they see nonsense like this, it is certain to be well-debated, even if the original intention was apparently (somehow) noble.

I think part of the "sensationalism" behind the articles about the proposed change is due to the fact that the government is running way into the red, spending wise, and bumping along from shut down to shut down (or so it seems). People are getting very tired of "pork barrel" projects that have very little bearing or purpose.

Dave,

The original article did try to sensationalize this by saying "Obama is turning the Marines Girly" but he has nothing to do with the changes so that was stated purely to get a rise out of people.

You know, I don't see the reason in not allowing women to wear the same uniform. The purpose of a uniform is to look uniform. Kat brought up a good point I think, one of the themes which has been mentioned in this thread is that the bell crown is outdated, it's of an age which is so far removed from us that it looks funny; it's outdated. Couldn't the idea of some gender specific clothing be outdated too? Women wear pants, 100 years ago they didn't. 100 years ago the bell crown was a man's hat, who says it has to be? An old perception formed in previous centuries?

A hat is a hat, there is no gender except what is perceived. If a man wears a baseball cap, then it's a baseball cap; why should it be different for women?

Actually, wouldn't standardizing uniforms save more money in the long run?

In any event we're being told the hat is "girly", we have to remember to separate the actual issue so we can see all sides of it.

“The Marine Corps Times chimes in: "The movement to make female uniforms more similar to those worn by men comes as the Defense Department begins to open more roles in combat units to women." “

So this does have a purpose.

...Kat

I have to reiterate...I don't see the purpose.

Kat, you never served in the military. I did. I served with MANY females, both in the Navy and in the Marine Corps. I have served with them at sea and I've served with them ashore. I've served with them in combat roles, and I've served with them in non-combat roles.

Not once, never, nada, ever, did a single female ever tell me that they felt in any way that they could not do their job, nor my job (as I served in roles that were open to both genders) because they wore a uniform that was cut differently than mine.

So whether or not they should allow women to serve in the infantry or as part of a SEAL unit is an argument that has no standing with regard to the style of their service and dress uniforms.

So I have to disagree. This is a waste of taxpayer money that serves no purpose.

I originally posted it as a documentation of a new Usmc hat on this forum, just so we have it for reference, but glad it's sticking around so to speak!

Yes I read the NY post article as well, looks like somebody just wants to spite an opposite political party ( I hate when either side does it) but clearly doesn't understand the history of the bell crown hat in Corps history. I actually posted on the comments thread on that article something I rarely do.

Yes what is fascinating is the changing styles over time if any Belleau Woods vets were still alive I would dare for someone to call them Girly for wearing Bell Crown hats at one time!

But, anytime someone brings this up, people SCREAM. "You can't do that, you're not giving a fair chance to females!!!"

Really?

So why do we have to have the exact same uniform when no one is complaining? Other than we "have to do it to make females feel equal"?

That's the worst argument I've ever heard.

No, what this is is a pet project of someone who has some great idea for something that is not required nor desired. Someone will get an MSM pinned to their chest and a contractor will get a lucrative contract to make a bunch of new clothing. They will probably make them of poor quality first, and then they will get the next contract to repair them all (no warranties, of course).

It happens again and again and again. It has happened with every "great idea" uniform roll out I've seen in the last 16 years of wearing them myself.

You know, I don't see the reason in not allowing women to wear the same uniform. The purpose of a uniform is to look uniform.

That's a logical statement, but the problem is this: Yes, the uniform does provide some uniformity visually. However, the uniform is more than "just" so everyone looks "uniform". If that were the case, the government could save money and put all of the people in the military in white (or pick your favorite color) coveralls and everyone would look like they were wearing the same outfit. In fact, if we wanted everyone to look uniform, the military should only bring in people who are all of the same gender, the same color, the same height, the same weight...you can see where this is going. I think the idea of bringing in a bunch of white males that are between 5'8" and 6'2", or females with less than a A-cup of the same height who could look no different than males in the same uniform, then go ahead and cut everyone's hair (including the females') into high-and-tights...that isn't going to fly with anyone. The greatest thing about our military is that it's a melting pot for everyone. No matter who you are or where you're from, you can defend your country and be proud of what you do.

The uniform provides MUCH more than just a sense of uniformity...it provides an IDENTITY. You see a Marine walking down the street, and without knowing anything else, you know who they are and the background they have. Uniforms also bear the marks of service and rank...something that is very un-uniform across all services, but is vitally important at giving someone authority and bringing structure to the military. The things that are worn provide a thumbprint for the person wearing them, and provides them and everyone that sees them with an indication of who they are, the experiences they've had, and the potential and expertise they bring to the table.